The Public Question Time proved lively, and largely good-natured. Questions included—

Could the council could improve its communications?

The website lacked profiles of some councillors, and this month’s Agenda. Could the council also publish the Appendices referred to in the Agenda? The questioner had been told before that “things would start to happen,” but he had yet to see real progress.

The Chairman acknowledged the need to update the website. The clerk explained that the missing Agenda was unintentional, as she had inadvertently “pressed the wrong button”.

Why can’t we get even the simple things done?

A parishioner explained that he had previously confessed to clearing paths and gutters, and Councillor Cobb had told him this was not a good idea because of issues of liability.

Since then, he had followed Councillor Cobb’s advice. He had reported the issue three times to Wiltshire Council through their on-line issues portal. Nothing had happened. He had received no feedback, two-and-a -half months later. The paths were dangerous, especially to those with children. The drains were in danger of blocking.

If we can’t get the small things done, how can we get the big things done?

If Wiltshire won’t act, should the Parish Council take over? At the moment, there was “a complete vacuum.” Wiltshire Council should delete its “everybody counts” motto, as clearly it means nothing.

The Chairman explained that Councillor Cobb had spoken to Highways. There were issues because of the early termination of the maintenance contract with Balfour Beatty (which could also affect the chicane and footpath). A meeting was planned with Wiltshire Council and the new contractors in April. However, the Chairman agreed a more robust approach was appropriate. The Parish Council would raise with Wiltshire Council before then.

What’s happening with the Car Park Project?

The Chairman explained that the Car Park Project Working Group had yet to meet, so there was no update. A meeting is planned for March. (Later in the meeting, Councillors Cobb and Sharp were appointed to the working group).

A parishioner then asked where the Council stood on the project following Wiltshire Council’s proposals to cut essential services? The Parish Council might need to fund these in the future.

The Chairman said the Council was “not rushing headlong” into anything. It would consider all options carefully.

Will there be a referendum on the car park?

The Chairman said the Council had “already done that.”

He went on to explain. A referendum had been mentioned during a public meeting, but had not been put forward as a course of action by the Council. However, the Council had consulted.

Although the Council had consulted, it had no duty to do so. The consultation had “opened up a can of worms.” However, the Chairman said he had no regrets. It was important for the Council to be transparent.

Can we make better use of the Jubilee Club House?

A working group will consider this further, including wider use of the car park and a possible mini-bus service.

What is the Council doing to ease traffic mayhem at the Butts?

If there is an obstruction, Councillor Pfleger advised contacting the police.

The Chairman said Councillor Cobb and a working group would be considering options carefully, and taking forward. Double yellow lines on both sides of the road could be a first step, and possibly the most cost-effective way of easing the issue.

Before the public part of the meeting concluded, Councillor Pfleger asked for an apology for derogatory comments he said had previously been made by a parishioner. However, no apology, or acknowledgement, was forthcoming.

***

Neighbourhood Plan update

As an interested party, Andrew Harris left the Chair for the discussion over the Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Pfleger took over.

The meeting finally approved the draft neighbourhood plan. This means, in theory, the plan can proceed for the necessary informal six-week public consultation. The meeting also resolved to authorize minor changes to the draft chapters “in the interests of clarity, accuracy and consistency”. Major amendments would need to go back to the council for approval.

Councillor Pepperall then gave an update on recent developments. Purton has left the New V planning group, deciding to go-it-alone. Lyneham and Bradenstoke are also pulling out.

This will inevitably delay matters. However, it is not necessarily fatal to the Lydiard chapter if the remaining villages can work together successfully.

Input from Lydiard Tregoze remains outstanding. Should they not proceed, additional technical issues will arise as the neighbourhood planning area will no longer be contiguous. Councillor Pepperall offered to attend their next parish meeting in order to progress matters.

Prepare for Council tax rises and cuts to services

Councillor Sharp gave an update on the budget meeting he had attended at Wiltshire Council.

Wiltshire Council are still looking to cut £900 million from the budget. However, there is scant detail so it is hard to know how this will affect the Parish.

Parishioners may, however, get some unpleasant surprises.

Council tax rises (in contrast to the Parish Precept) are capped at 2%, and Wiltshire Council are looking to make the maximum increase allowed. They also propose an additional 2% increase specifically for adult social care (a permitted exception, which is to be ring-fenced). The fire service will be increasing their precept by 6% (paradoxically higher on account of the cost-saving merger), and the police plan to increase their precept by 4% (no explanation given at the meeting).

The Chairman said it was important to know more about what services would be cut in order for the Parish Council to set their precept, manage any reserves, and plan accordingly. Unfortunately, the lack of detail made this difficult. The Council would need to find out more, and he would appreciate the County Councillor attending the next meeting and giving a full report.

At the budget meeting, Wiltshire Council also suggested that volunteers could help to plug the gap in services.

Volunteers are hard to come by

A number of comments were made on the lack of people coming forward to help. For example, no members of the public had helped the clerk move offices. The annual litter-pick is another example. “We don’t get any volunteers anyway, and most of those come from Swindon.”

The Chairman made the point that, if people weren’t happy with what the council was doing, they had the opportunity to step forward themselves.

Volunteers sought for the annual litter pick

This year’s litter pick is now set for 10am, Sunday, 10th March. This is a week later than the date originally suggested to coincide with the Clean for Queen campaign. That date clashes with Mother’s Day.

Casual Vacancies

There are now two casual vacancies.

The Chairman said the Council should write to David Rees and Annamaria Beswick Edwards, thanking them for their contribution and wishing them well.

The meeting agreed to re-advertise the vacancy left by David Rees.

The statutory notices sent following Annamaria Beswick Edward’s resignation expire on 18 February. If no election is called by then, the Council will also look to fill that vacancy.

(NOTE: The Council can co-opt a councillor once the statutory procedure has been exhausted. Basically, public notice is given. Ten parishioners can then demand an election. If an election is not called before expiry of the notice period, the Council can then look for someone to co-opt into that vacancy).

Poll cards

The meeting agreed not to send out poll cards in the event of an election because of the cost (up to £5,000 for a large parish). Individual candidates could send out flyers. The Council could give general publicity about any forthcoming election, for example through the local magazine. However, there were strict legal limits to what they could and couldn’t do.

Planning applications

The meeting discussed four applications. It raised no objections to the proposed extensions to 22 The Close (16/00310/FULL) and Unit 2 Bagbury Business Park (15/12241/FUL).

However, the Council objected to approval of reserved matters for the key workers’ dwelling at Lydiard Field Stud (15/12575/REM), which it considered “too large”. It also objected to the proposed new dwelling at Hilldrop Farm, Greenhill (15/12765/FUL), citing “overdevelopment.”

Defibrillator

The Parish Council failed to secure a defibrillator from the British Heart Foundation. The clerk and Councillor Mowbray will investigate other possibilities.

Exclusion of the press and public

At 8.30pm, the public part of the meeting concluded. Councillors remained to discuss establishment, property and finance matters, in respect of which it considered “publicity would be prejudicial by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted.”

Are the Parish Council’s plans to extend the car park at Lydiard Millicent Parish Hall going ahead, or not?

Andrew Harris, Chair of Lydiard Millicent Parish Council, announced the results of the village-wide consultation at yesterday’s Parish Council meeting.

The majority of respondents were opposed to the project. However, residents will have to wait a little longer to find out if the Council is going to proceed, and the effect on their council tax.

In November, the Parish Council wrote to 600 households, asking residents if they wanted to fund the short fall in the car park project through an increase to their precept (the part of the Council Tax that is set by the Parish Council). The letter explained that the projected shortfall would equate to an extra annual increase of £4.20 for a Band A house, up to £12.60 for a band H house.

However, these estimates may need revising. The Council acknowledged yesterday that it may not be able to recover VAT on its construction costs, as originally thought. This would add another £16,000 to the shortfall. The Chairman admitted this made “the picture even bleaker.”

160 residents replied to the letter. 65 were in favour of the car park proceeding, 71 were against. And 24 were undecided. The Chairman was pleased with the response, and the number of positive and constructive suggestions the Council had received.

21 members of the public attended the meeting. However, those speaking were critical of the Council’s plans.

One resident demanded, what was there left to debate if a majority of residents were against the proposals? The Chairman welcomed consultation and debate. However, he explained that the letter to residents had asked for comments, not votes.

Councillor Cobb made the point that the Council could have proceeded with the car park, and precept increase without the consultation. The first residents would then know was when the bulldozers moved in!

Concerns and comments from the public included:

Residents are having effectively to fund parents who bring their children to school from outside the parish.

The major beneficiary, the school, is not contributing sufficiently.

Other measures (traffic restrictions, minibuses, walking trains, footpaths, parking permits) should be properly explored. One resident asked, “Why don’t you fix the road rather than the car park?”

The likely detrimental effect on other services and projects.

Without other measures, parents would not park sensibly even if there was an extended car park.

There were better uses for the land (for example, a peaceful community orchard where villagers could sit and observe the walking train of school children).

Could the Council try out a temporary car park to see how things go before committing itself?

There is a likelihood of further costs overruns. One member of the public expressed concern that the Council’s figures in its consultation letter were misleading. For example, it did not take account of any maintenance costs. There was a fear that the Council would be throwing “good money after bad.”

The Chairman summed up parishioners’ concerns as centering around the cost, the school’s contribution and the viability of other measures. Given this, he thought that “rushing headlong to start the car park in January may not be the right thing.”

The public part of the meeting closed, and councillors considered the issues raised.

Annamaria Beswick Edwards, Chair of the Finance Working Group, voiced concern over the impact on other services, the Council’s reserves and cash flow. The Council’s finances could not support the project, “not this year, not next,” she said. Other councillors conceded that the project was beginning to look less and less affordable.

All councillors recognised there was a major issue with parents’ parking and road safety. Views differed on how this could be solved, and the viability of alternatives to the car park.

Yellow lines were one possibility. Councillor Cobb said this would be down to Wiltshire County Council. The Parish Council and residents could only lobby hard, which he had already been doing. The Chair suggested the emergency services and coach companies could be asked to support a case for traffic measures, as the situation was a safety issue. Councillor Groom suggested taking photographs of dangerous parking.

The Chair started a petition for road markings at the meeting, and suggested residents could be asked to sign at the coffee and mince pie morning at the Village Hall. Councillor Cobb suggested residents raise an issue at county. (This can be done through Wiltshire Council’s online issue form).

In conclusion, the Council agreed that it still supported the car park extension in principle. However, it was mindful of the cost, and possible effect on the precept. Proceeding at the moment would be premature.

The Chair acknowledged that there was further work and investigation to do. The council would form a small working party to look at other sources of funding, and to consider further.